TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a Sessions Court specified as a Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ceased to be a Court of Session and therefore lacked jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the committal order and conviction were invalid on that ground.
Analysis: The Court held that specification of a Sessions Court as a Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not denude it of its character as a Court of Session. A trial before such a court must still proceed in accordance with the procedure applicable to a Court of Session. The objection accepted by the High Court was purely technical and, in any event, such objections ought to be raised at the earliest stage, particularly in view of the scheme of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The committal order was therefore not illegal, and the High Court ought to have decided the criminal appeal on merits.
Conclusion: The Special Court had jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the committal was valid, and the High Court's judgment setting aside the conviction and sentence was unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
